Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Surya Rubbers (Guj.) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 20 February, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(133)ELT620(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. The question before the Commissioner (Appeal) was whether the goods, described as "precured tread rubber" manufactured by the appellant was entitled to the benefit of entry 40.3 in the Table to the notification 8/96 and corresponding entries in its successor notifications. The entry exempted inter alia tread rubber for duty in excess of 15% While the Asst. Commissioner has denied the benefit of notification on the ground that it is only the goods specified in heading 40.06 of the Tariff that are entitled to the exemption, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal before him for failure to comply with his order requiring deposit of the entire duty.
2. The same Commissioner in his earlier order no. 163/165/BDR/99 dated 19.7.99 has extended the benefit of the notification to the same goods manufactured by the appellant. In these circumstances, his dismissal of the appeal for failure to deposit the entire duty was wrong.
3. Accordingly, we set aside the order, allow the appeal. Commissioner shall decide the appeal before him on merits in accordance with law without insisting on any deposit.